|
http://vaildaily.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20040919/LETTER/109190004&Se
archID=73184461205033
Letters to the editor
Liza Yambao
September 19, 2004
I have read several articles of Dana Easter's comments in the last couple of
days and it made me sick to my stomach to see a person in her position stoop
so low. She could not prove her case in court, but she is so fierce in
making her case in the press. Her comments are slanderous and as an officer
of the court, she should know better.
Is it because she thinks that she can say whatever she wants to since she
does not have to prove any of it? Or is she trying to redeem herself by
helping Clune and Wood extort money from Mr. Bryant?
I have taken excerpts from her interviews and compared it against the
evidence and the voluminous court documents. In several instances, what she
had said appears to be outright lies. ...
"In a wide-ranging interview, Dana Easter, one of the prosecutors working
for the 5th Judicial District Attorney's Office, said the case could have
been proved by the woman's injuries from a 'violent sex assault,' the NBA
star's own statement to police and three witnesses who saw the woman the
night of the alleged rape."
This is a direct contradiction to what Ms. Bakke had said at the June 22 RSL
hearing after Dr. Johnson had testified: "MS. BAKKE: Judge, my only point
was that if in fact you were to rule that all of the rape shield evidence
were going to come in in this case, I'm thinking the prosecution is going to
sit down and re-evaluate the quality of its case and its chances of a
successful prosecution."
Even Judge Gannett disagrees with Ms. Easter: "Almost all of the evidence
introduced at the preliminary hearing permits multiple inferences which,
when viewed either independently or collectively, and upon reasonable
inference, do not support a finding of probable cause. Simply put, this
Court could not make a finding of probably cause in the instant matter
absent reliance upon those inference supportive of the People's case."
The prosecution's case did not improve at all since the October preliminary
hearing.
"The then-19-year-old woman didn't know who Kobe Bryant was when his
reservation was made, Easter said, and only went to his room to get his
autograph for her friend and fellow worker who is a basketball fan."
This is a direct contradiction of Detective Winter's testimony at the
preliminary hearing last October: "Q. And did the victim know, when the name
Kobe Bryant was mentioned, that this was, in fact, an LA Lakers basketball
player? A. That's what she stated. Q. Did she indicate what her feelings
were about that, Kobe Bryant showing up to The Lodge and Spa where she
worked? A. She stated she was excited that he was coming, and wanted to meet
him." "Sexual-assault experts were going to testify that the woman had
severe genital lacerations, including what's called "battering ram" injuries
that are found in violent rapes."
This is contradicted by an interview of Baden to the NY Daily News: "'The
nature of the injuries doesn't tell you if the sex was consensual,' Baden
said. 'It becomes a he said, she said. It becomes a jury question: Who do
you believe?'"
Baden was not the only one with doubts. He said two nurses who examined the
accuser the day after the encounter told him they could not say whether the
injuries were the result of a rape. "In my discussion with them, together
with the DAs, they could not tell," Baden said."
It's curious that the prosecution filed a motion to dismiss after the
defense filed their own motion to dismiss because the prosecution withheld
information that could prove Kobe Bryant was innocent.
"Bryant's attorney's remark that the woman had had sex with 'three men in
three days' was a sound bite that has never been proved true, Easter said.
There is no mysterious 'Mr. X' who had sex with the woman in the 15 hours
after she was with Bryant and before her rape exam. In fact, there was no
sperm or semen found inside the woman, and that found on her yellow
underwear was because she had worn them after a consensual sexual liaison on
June 18."
The June 22 transcript was very evident in depicting Mr. X. The prosecution
had no one to rebut the defense theory. Dr. Lee did not testify even if he
was present in court.
On Aug. 26, the prosecution challenged the veracity of the defense DNA
evidence: "THE COURT: Well, let me ask you my next question. And that is, do
your experts say that they believe that, who are familiar with the way these
computer runs are generated? MS. EASTER: They do. THE COURT: And who is
that? MS. EASTER: Judge, I do not - I cannot at this time reveal who we are
consulting with. THE COURT: Then I can't evaluate it. MS. EASTER: I
understand."
Did the prosecution have a secret panel of DNA experts? And why did they
drop their motion for a 702 hearing?
"The two guests described the woman as 'bubbly and excited' to meet Bryant.
That changed dramatically after her time with him. She came out into the
lobby, 'made a beeline' to leave, grabbed her purse and left, Easter said.
Pietrack caught up with her."
Did we forget the night auditor who said the accuser looked fine and
continued to finish her work? Weren't there computer reports to prove that
the accuser did finish balancing her work?
"Jury selection was going well, and prosecutors were confident they would
find a good panel."
If jury selection was going so well, why did the prosecution ask the judge
to dismiss all jurors who answered that they thought Kobe Bryant was
"innocent"?
Vail Daily, Aug. 31: "Deputy District Attorney Ingrid Bakke asked that any
prospective juror who says they already think Bryant is definitely or
probably not guilty, before hearing the evidence, should be challenged and
probably dismissed. Bryant's defense lawyer Harold Haddon said the opposite
must also be applied - that any prospective juror who thinks Bryant is
guilty should also be dismissed."
What happened to the "presumption of innocence"? I am guessing that there
were too many who answered this way and it scared the prosecution. I have
heard several lawyers and media personalities who have commented on the
case. A good number of the statements and opinions have been skewed,
intentionally or otherwise.
It is unfortunate that those who have not followed the case closely are
going to be misled by remarks that appear to mischaracterize the facts. Kobe
Bryant is an innocent man and until someone proves that he is guilty, he
will remain innocent of this charge.
|
| |
| |
|
